Glad you agree with me.  Maybe someday a fair piece will be written about the strengths in the KCSD.

 It was the physical comparison Lois made between Sheriff's Deputies and Bakersfield Police Officers that made me upset.  It was blatantly unfair.  Not once did she mentioned that the BPD has a MUCH younger force of officers.   They are naturally going to be thinner.   It also makes sense that,  being younger, more of them are not married or tied down with kids and household problems.   They have more free time to stay in shape.  Not like the older family men you find in the Sheriff's dept.

Excellent point! I bet if anyone cared to look into the situation at present they would find out that this is right on point. Seems to me the KCSO has recently undergone a massive demographics change with a whole spate of older heads retiring and new ones brought on. I talk to Deputies every chance I get and note that many of the older ones have a tool shed (like me) and its just a manifestation of age. Most of them are getting ready to retire out -- which also makes me realize the veracity in the 3 @ 50 retirement scheme as chasing crooks at much past 50 doesn't really seem like a good ID to me.

The only drawback to the 3 @ 50 to me is that they lose a wealth of experience that could fare just fine in a management/desk job situation. Why should all these older Deputies (or any LEO's) have to become school cops, etc. out there upon turning 50 doing more physical stuff when they could sit behind a desk and avail their Depts of their vast experience (their brains) garnered over many years and much taxpayer $$ being spent on them?

I have always thought the Delayed Retirement Options, etc. I've read about where these older guys can go ahead and take advantage of the 3 @ 50 and bank into Def Comp, etc. a current salary., would make sense...... Win - Win seems to me...........

Chico

It was the physical comparison Lois made between Sheriff's Deputies and Bakersfield Police Officers that made me upset.  It was blatantly unfair.  Not once did she mentioned that the BPD has a MUCH younger force of officers.   They are naturally going to be thinner.   It also makes sense that,  being younger, more of them are not married or tied down with kids and household problems.   They have more free time to stay in shape.  Not like the older family men you find in the Sheriff's dept.

She never mentioned the strengths you find in the KCSO that you won't find at the BPD.  For instance, did her article ever  mention that the BPD officers ARE TRAINED by officers of the Sheriff's dept.  Did she mention that sheriffs deputies (on average) do not  have the "hot dog" mentality you find at the BPD which is making us infamous in California.   That because sheriffs deputies can diffuse dangerous situations using their experience  rather than having to go to  force.

She didn't mention the 50 pounds of weight that a sheriffs deputy  wears across his chest and around his waist.  You don't bounce out of a patrol car (as she expects) with that kind of weight bearing down on you.

I tried to pick up a fully loaded belt and a vest once.  My legs buckled.  I wish Lois had thought to do the same experiment.

I made peace with Lois after her article.  She's never acknowledged anything I've ever written since then  so I imagine she's hasn't made peace with me.  But that's the price you pay for having strong opinions.   At any rate,  the column which I didn't like was only one of the many she's written that I was in total agreement with.

Does that answer your question Chico?

What was it Lois said about Deputies?

Was it when she talked about their big bellies or what?

Ya'll are so sensitive.  Reading this from a perfectly detached 3rd person point of view, I could easily embrace Catherine's heartfelt reflection of motherhood.  The next post by Saber carried such a different tone it actually seemed like he is a jaded prick; however, his head is just in a different place.  You can see from his later claim that he was smearing on the sarcasm thick and really didn't mean to minimize Catherine's love of parenthood.

This isn't a reason for you to poo-poo each other forever.  Audrey, you too.  I just can't bear it if this doesn't get swept under the rug.

Never underestimate the power of the smiley face, or otherwise saying point blank what is meant to be funny, ironic, silly, critical. blah blah blah.

It just kills me to see people fight when they're both "right."  Now hug.

Saberhagen

I don't even remember the exchange you're referring to.  I remember letting Lois have it over her mean spirited column about Sheriff's deputies but I don't remember you being in that conversation.  Really, it meant so little to me, until today I would have sworn they we never exhanged insults.

When someone express hurt,it must be the most costly thing to say I am sorry,simply and with out any buts.Saber~ you seem a nice enough guy,but hate is a strong word . But I had to laugh at the emotions on Chico's blog...but I use the old fashioned kind myself,when my intent maybe unclear.As far as kids taking care of you in old age~ mine died to get out of it..... :-)

Chico, be sure not to grant medical power of attorney to the kid who kicked the dog, pilfered money from your pocket when you were asleep and when confronted lied blaming it on the innocent sister. 

Never hire a nurse that your dog doesn't like.

Some of the grand kids came to visit when I had an operation once. I was laying there with the tubes and everything running everywhere and one of them was fooling around with the machine that monitors heart rate, etc. She was also squeezing on the IV bag and tube.... I finally said:  "what the heck are you doing girl?"

My wife just quietly said:  "She's practicing. Wait until she finds the plug........"

A couple years later I saw the same thing on  "2.5 Men" and felt like I should've gotten royalties.......

Chico says: "Hell, when I first saw Audrey's comment, I thought she was talking to ME!  ROTFLMAO!"

Nah, your safe.

They have me to kick around now.

I made a joke of motherhood, kids and old people. 

You can't sink any lower than that.

Besides, Audrey's hated me since I busted her chops over a nasty, hateful, venomous diatribe she once spewed in a vicious name-calling attack against Lois Henry over a column she didn't like.

Did I get it?

Hell, when I first saw Audrey's comment, I thought she was talking to ME!  ROTFLMAO!

You're not important enough to me for me to feel "tweaked" by anything you say.   Hope that doesn't hurt your manly pride.

Sorry to have tweaked your delicate sensitivities, girls.

Guess I'll just shuffle on off to my day job writing unfunny material for standup comics and slap the asses of a few cocktail waitresses while puffing cigars and guffawing with the boys over shots of Jack and bad jokes.

Hormone talk.  How original.  I'm cut to the quick.

If you think your post is funny you must be a laugh riot when you drink.    You probably slap the rear of the nearest  cocktail waitress and order up another round for the boys.  Yee Haw

Keep your day job, Saber.

I wrote a serious, heartfelt post about why I became a mother and you reduced it to my "biological clock" ticking.  Nice. 

I guess I don't really know where you're coming from, and perhaps I never will. 

Here's some constructive criticism, though: what you seem to consider humor actually comes off (on the blogs, anyway) as a bitter rant. 

Also, save yourself some time by refraining from addressing posts directly to me in the future.  I won't be reading them.

Catherine, Audrey, you guys seriously don't get that I wrote what I thought a humorous piece?

So now I'm an oversensitive hypocritical nut case?

Man, maybe you guys need to get your hormones right or something.

It was humor, nothing more.

Unbelievable.

Chico, did you get it?

No body cares about your old geezer problems.

Talk about sensitive, Jeez..

I guess my attempt at humor was widely misconstrued.

Sorry, I forgot the emoticons.

Oh I didn't know the plan was to have children so they could take care of you in your "old age". 

If you need someone to finish raising you, marry again.

With you on the  "not counting on elder-care" issue Saber.

Do the best you can with em, they may love ya or hate ya, but for your own care -- save yer sheckles.....LOL!

The best we can hope for is have enough of em to pay a competent disinterested professional to cater to our needs......... ;-)

I disabused myself of the  "elder-care by progeny"  ethic many moons ago.......

Saberhagen

Wow you sound bitter.   

Sorry child rearing was such a bust for you.   Considering you're first disappointment you're smart to stay away from it the second time.

Saber, you seem to be uber-sensitive when it comes to remarks from other bloggers, and completely insensible of your own critical shortcomings.  Kinda like...oh I don't know...a HYPOCRITE!!!!

Please spare me your butt-hurt whines in the future.  And just so you know, I didn't read your whole novela-length post.  The first couple of sentences were enough to make me understand you're a nut.

So, Catherine, your "biological clock" began ticking upon the discovery of the perfect specimen with whom to giddily co mingle genes and create hybrid clones of yourselves.

The perfect genetic recipe, huh?

How wonderful.

Makes you wanna smile and sing Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah all day long?

Yeah, well, you'll be singing a different tune when they need a couple hundred grand apiece to go to Ivy League colleges, and convertibles to get back and forth to your heavily mortgaged house on Thanksgiving where you will feed them turkey for the 26th time and do their laundry between the three jobs you have to work at to pay off the high interest second and maxed-out equity line.

Oh yeah, and three months after they graduate, the girl(s) will want to be married and become housewives.

The weddings and receptions for 470 in the Hilton ballroom and dance with daddy in $8,000 dresses to a full orchestra shouldn't set you back more than $25K or so each.

But, hey, who's counting? It's her Big Day, a once-in-a-lifetime thing. You can put it on the Amex card with the extended payment option.

You should be able to pay off the photographer, planner, consult ant, bridesmaid dresses, tuxedo rentals, flowers, invitations and miscellaneous stuff with what's left of your IRA and the sale of a couple stocks you managed to hang onto.

Oh, and you'll need to fly Grandma Ellie and, Grandpa Joe, and a few aunts and uncles from the east coast, Midwest and one from Alaska. And favorite Uncle Chet who's on hemo dialysis and a respirator will need a full blown medical transport plane and a nurse.

And someone's gotta help the kids get started in their own new homes with down payments.....

But all your sacrifices will be rewarded when you get old.

The kids will make sure you get into a decent nursing home that doesn't smell too awful except when Mrs Whitfield lets loose with a load in her wheelchair.

They'll visit every couple weeks with the snotty grand kids who sit impatiently in the corner with their noses wrinkled at the acrid aroma of old age, their ears stuffed with Ipods, anxious to get to Burger King for dinner.

The girls will make sure you have plenty of Depends and even your own television with a good set of earphones to drown out the ominous rales of Mr Mancini, your 104-year-old room mate.

Maybe, if the son-in-law's doing good with his optometry business, you might even get a private room....

Actually, Catherine, I'm not a stranger to the world of child rearing after having had a natural and three steps who are all now raising their own children.

I wasn't very good at it, but a couple of them somehow ended up liking me.

But I'm not counting on them for long term elder care.

My present wife and I won't be "having" any of our own. We're content to spend the foreseeable future devoted entirely to each other.

There's been some talk between us about possible adoption, but it's looking extremely unlikely.

She's considerably younger than me and I expect after she sells the house and golf cart that she'll see to it  that I get on Medicaid and at least have a television and laptop in my room. 

But it's not all that bleak.

Barring Alzheimer's and dementia, I will have the comfort of some pleasant memories. 

Saber, my humor is often misconstrued.  Believe me, you're not alone. 

I guess where I'm coming from is that I'm a mother of a 4-year-old and an 8-month-old, and so I'm probably sensitive, myself, where questions of overpopulation are concerned.  Me?  Overpopulating the world?  Naaaww.

I know a lot of people say this, but having children was the best thing that ever happened to me.  What's funny is that I pretty much felt the same way as you seem to about kids and the world's overpopulation.  I was never a girl that liked dolls (boooring!) and I never wanted to hold babies, even into my twenties.  I just couldn't see what the big deal was, and I secretly suspected that people only said the day of their child's birth was the best day of their lives because they thought that's what other people wanted to hear. 

What changed for me was when I met my husband.  I was 30.  I fell so wildly and crazily in love with this man that I had feelings I'd never had before.  All my former beliefs were turned on their heads and suddenly I WANTED kids.  I wanted to share my love even more; expand my love.  It's all cheesy, I know, but true.  It's hard to explain to someone who's never felt that way, but I will say one thing--it's kinda like my life before I had my kids was all in black and white, and everything since then is in color.  A bright kaleidoscope of color.  Really. 

So you can believe people when they say having kids was the best thing that ever happened to them--it's true.  Also, it's one of the major milestones of life, along with birth, love, death, etc.  I would never discourage someone from experiencing this major aspect of life--it's just too cool.  Maybe you'll have a reversal of thinking, too, and maybe you won't.  I'm just glad I did.

Saber~Thanks ,heat of the moment and all that.

Catherine says: "Sage never said that, Saber.  I did.  You can apologize to Sage anytime."

Sorry Sage.

"As for calling you egotistical.  Sorry.  I didn't realize you were so sensitive about it.  I'm also sorry that you thought I was insulting you when I said you deserved a smack.  That was actually a joke.  I'll try to make my jokes more obvious in the future."

Catherine, I'm really not all that sensitive about it. I simply felt that having one's earnestly presented and reasonable opinion reduced to egotistical banality merits a defensive response, especially if the comment was intended seriously.

I perceived no indication of humor in your comment, so I responded defensively to the raw verbiage which, incidentally seemed harsh if intended seriously. Especially coming from reasonable you.

Thank you for the clarification and apology.

I, too, apologize for my failure to recognize your humor. I guess we have been conditioned by the hostility exhibited by some bloggers to sometimes overlook and overreact.

As for the smack part, I suspected it might be in jest but....

Well anyway, I'm not a fan of the use of emoticons, but it is quite common that the intent of humor is often otherwise overlooked.

I'm afraid that much of my rhetoric is also often widely misconstrued whether intended to be serious or not.

But I should have known by now after reading your intelligent and insightful comments for years now, that you're not one to wontonly insult another. My bad.

I, too will try to be a better communicator in the future.

Sage never said that, Saber.  I did.  You can apologize to Sage anytime.

As for calling you egotistical.  Sorry.  I didn't realize you were so sensitive about it.  I'm also sorry that you thought I was insulting you when I said you deserved a smack.  That was actually a joke.  I'll try to make my jokes more obvious in the future. 

Sage says: Huh? Did I mention getting "laid"? I'm so confused.....Saber~ for the record:I did not mention getting "laid" at all. But to be clear,I am for it,given consenting adults.

You said earlier to my contention that women control pregnancy and the man has no say in the matter, that a man's say ends where his zipper begins.

As the discussion concerned pregnancy, I perhaps erroneously interpreted your comment as an allusion to man's genitalia.

Man unzips to urinate, fornicate, masterbate or simply undress for bed or bath. I chose to jokingly respond to the fornication aspect.

Women unzip for similar reasons.......

Anyway, whatever the point, it is now stale.

Catherine says:"I was just being flippant, Saber.  I'm not arguing with you on your points."

I understood that.

Besides, I'm not looking for a fight, only productive discourse.

"I agree that too many idiots are congratulating themselves on having babies they cannot care for instead of having abortions and being baby murderers.  I think the main reason behind this is that there really is no longer a stigma against stupid, unmarried 15-year-old girls having babies, but there is still a stigma against abortion.  Whatever the path of least resistance is, you know.  They'll worry about tomorrow (and the next 20 years) later."

Good point. Productive discourse.

"However, implying that parents are somehow ruining the world because of world overpopulation just because YOU don't want kids and can't see beyond your own ego and admit that other people who don't think like you do may not, as a result, be WRONG, deserves a big *SMACK!* from my gentle, mothering hand."

I don't know what my ego has to do with any of this. Your summary reduction of another's reasonable view to a banal egotistical inability to present a cogent thought is not in the least productive.

My personal views, observations and opinions are simply that and nothing more. I don't represent them as anything more. My statements were not couched in terms of right or wrong, good or bad or any other empirical judgment.

I don't really need to "admit" that my views are not necessarily held by others. I'm actually not so ignorant and egotistical that I don't know that. Apparently, judging by your statement alleging that my view is clouded by an ego problem, you think otherwise.

But the fact is, I welcome discussion with those holding different views, even with those who choose to resort to ad hominem argument.

Ego, indeed.

If anyone deserves a *smack* here, it would be you for your insulting remark.

My opinion as stated earlier is that some parents fail to intelligently address teen sex and that failure might indeed contribute to an equally ignorant daughter and result in an unplanned pregnancy.

My further observation is that overpopulation in underdeveloped nations leads directly to their problems with poverty and a host of other social maladies. Unchecked, overpopulation will adversely affect not only these uderdeveloped nations but the entire planet.

Birth control and abortion serve to alleviate population growth.

Now, what is so egotistical about that?

Well, I'll say it:  most of us have made up our minds who gets the "X" on the ballot.  I wish we could all just go to sleep until after it's over, and quit bickering about it.  Me included.  To a Martian, we'd probably all be considered to be acting like kids fighting during recess -- fighting about something that cannot be won.  The only thing that matters is that we vote.  Every last one of us.

The freepers had McBush pegged a long time ago:  a phony.  The only reason they're backing him now is that his opponent is a "ni(BONG!)"

I said, his opponent is a ni(BONG!)

(Sorry, "Blazing Saddles" joke.)

.

I don't think there *WAS* any Christian guard.  McBush stole the story from Solzienitzyn because it sounded good.  If it were true he'd have told about it earlier, not saved it for when he needed to get in good with the fundies.  Similarly, his shifting story about telling the jailers the names of a football team's offensive line.  I think he quite likely just spilled his guts

Whoa!  The Free Republic hammers McCain on the cross in the dirt story. That's the equal of the Pope b*tch-slapping Jesus through the nine circles of hell.

Looks like the tide just turned.  Now the REPUBLICANS are turning up with doubts about the story and even the whole slant has changed. Now, it appears that it was a common practice for the Viet Namese jailers to pressure POWs into going to church services when a crew of western journalists would show up, just so the Viet Namese could be seen as treating prisoners humanely.  On one of these occasions when they were trying to get McCain to go to church, McCain responded with a curse ("Fu-u-u-u-*k you, son of a b*tch" then giving the one-fingered salute to the guard. It could very well have been the case that the guard McCain implied was a secret Christian pal was just trying to coerce him into going to church.

McBush has now persuaded someone to back him up on his "cross in the dirt" fairy tale.  If only the guy weren't a money-runner for the convicted bribery expert Jack Abramoff, whom McBush covered for in the Senate.  Think the guy might owe old McBush a favor or two? 

Oh, and the guy's name is Swindle.  You can't make this up, folks.

I think it's a question a jet jock isn't likely to study at any of the service academies, true, Chico. They are about winning fights, as they should be.  It's not beyond the ability of common people to inquire into the subject, but religion doesn't inform beyond moral boundaries.  Science at least can say what is observable and most people can tell when a politician is simply pandering to exploit religious sentiment.

What Senator McCain's and President Bush's understanding clearly entails is a kind of black/while cutoff line that is defined as "the moment of conception."  But look what science actually says. It's not an instantaneous moment when when sperm meets egg.  It's something with a "ragged edge", as Steven Pinker says.

Pinker says:

"Just as a microscope reveals that a straight edge is really ragged, research on human reproduction shows that the 'moment of conception' is not a moment at all. Sometimes several sperm penetrate the outer membrane of the egg, and it takes time for the egg to eject the extra chromosomes ... Even when a single sperm enters, its genes remain separate from those of the egg for a day or more, and it takes yet another day or so for the newly merged genome to control the cell. So the 'moment' of conception is in fact a span of twenty-four to forty-eight hours."

What Bush and McCain consistently project as a worldview is that everything is black or white and that gray does not exists. Doesn't matter if its about the enemies of the state or when human life begins. To me, that translates into a kind of leadership has doesn't weigh decisions carefully. It's, as Random suggest, that these guys have something of a "god" complex in their approach to problems. I think that's very disturbing but, worse, I just don't think either Bush or McCain are all that concerned with religious issues beyond getting elected.  Look at Bush's record on faith-based initiatives. It was a no-show. McCain's interaction with religion is marginal at best. His most active role with religion is hanging out with religious multi-millionaires and pastors of mega churches, showing up once in a while to get a check and patting them on the back.  Even his "cross in the dirt" story is suspect since with was something like 25 years AFTER the fact that it even started showing up in his commentary. Somebody today noted the remarkable similarity of that story to the story Solginetzen told in The Gulag Archipelago".  People are now wondering, since McCain actually wrote stories years ago about his Christmases as a POW - stories that made NO mention of the cross in the dirt - just where the "cross in the dirt" story came from. Well, it first showed up when McCain worked with an author in the mid-1990s and that was, what? 25 years after his Vietnam experiences and well after "The Gulag Archipelago".

So McCain's faith seems disingenuous, a political expediency rather than an every day experience. Or about as real as Bill Clinton's personal relationship with Jesus, something that only exists during the election cycle. Moral certainty during an election cycle is not a replacement for scientific truth. Indeed, it should always be regarded as a big red flag when a politician exploits that option. I just find it a whole lot more honest of Obama to say "I don't know".  Anyone who has engaged in the "examined life" that is so highly regarded by Christians knows that "I don't know" or "I have to struggle with my doubts" is the far more human experience than the black and white profile McCain painted in that forum.  How easily those Baptist forget their own experience.

Lets see,the conventions are over ,what? the 4th of September. We have 4 debates,they do a little thing called cross country campaigning and we vote in November.Fear of collapse maybe.

I just read something that scared the crap out of me. McCain is taking Ambien to sleep. We could actually potentially have a president with access to nukes that could do things in the middle of the night and have no memory of them. I knew someone that baked a cake, frosted it, ate some all in the middle of the night and had no Idea, until seeing the mess the next morning. If McCain taking Ambien doesn't scare you, well, good luck. Would he be ready for that 3am call? Um, not that he would remember.

http://abcnews.go.com/Healt...

Why does B.O. refuse more 1-on-1 debates with McCain?  No particular reason, unless you factor in fear. 

The egg is alive before conception.  Therefore life does not begin at that point.  QED.

They very well could HM.

I don't think academics have any particular purchase on  "the truth" (when it comes to philosophies at any rate) as oposed to the  "common man".....................

Do you?

Obama has no illusions that he's god.  Not so the other two you mentioned.

Spam code ADDEU.  As in "probably time I gave the sprained wrist a wrest."

Naw, I'm not *THAT* delicate a flower.  Hospital visit for a handshake?  Good thing they've got good federal, single-payer insurance  I was moving a crate out of the storeroom and aggravated an old injury.

.

"Out of sight, out of mind" isn't what I had in mind.  More like "in a foreign territory where my influence, no matter how much  I might want it to, does not apply."  After birth they become citizens with rights.  Or at least residents with rights.

 Obama wants to wield power a million times greater than anything the Pope can imagine. NOTHING is above the President's pay grade.

So President Bush and candidate McCain for certain know when life begins? The most famous "C" student in Yale history and the guy who ranked 844th in a class of 880 at the academy? They know?

So out of sight out of mind, eh RF?

BTW, did you do a Cyndy McCaine on your wrist?

Gee, Chico, I'd have to say "poor and powerless folks who have already been born."  That "among us" part, you know.

On *THIS* planet, at least.

I hadn't heard Warren's question before.  It was phrased better than I expected--most people *DO* try to reduce it to "when does life begin," in which case the 2GY answer is correct.

To answer the question he *DID* ask, the correct answer is "at birth," for some of them, "at 18 years" for others, "at 21 years" for still others, and "never" for many.  Although under the marvelous compromise that is Roe v. Wade, government reserves the right to set certain conditions on abortion depending on arbitrary time scales.

(By the way, if I seem to be making more typoes than usual, that's because I'm typing with a @()*%* wrist brace on.)

Something that Obama said bothered me right when he said it, though.

He mentioned Mathew and talked about how we treat  "the least among us...."

Who would better fit that definition than the  "unborn"??

Random. I like the explanation from the cracker thief's tribe. When asked, "When does life begin?" someone said, "two billion years ago."

Spam code:  US XXX (LOL)

And for the record, if anyone thought Obama was talking about a higher power when he said it was above his pay grade needs to read up on Solomon. 

The question from Pastor Rick was:

Q: AT WHAT POINT DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE.
The assumption of Obama's critics is that a president should always reduce complex issues to simple black and white truisms, unfounded in reality. That's why they supported Bush. And that's why they're supporting McCain.  If Pastor Rick's question were rendered into a direct question, rather than a metaphor, the question would be, "When does life begin?"   If Obama's answer were rendered into a direct answer rather than a metaphor, it would be rendered, "I don't know." Which is exactly what the Pope (Ratzinger) says.

"Apparently God's representative on earth also doesn't hold the pay grade, either."

Obama wants to wield power a million times greater than anything the Pope can imagine. NOTHING is above the President's pay grade.

Obama is obviously not up to the task.

The Scientologists also share that belief, along with a screwy kind of reincarnation.  (Or, in the Ozarks, reintarnation.)

Once more, life began either 2 billion or just over 6000 years ago, depending on your favorite method of answering such questions.  It does *NOT* begin at conception.

As for "ensoulment," I believe that's when you learn to dance.